Skip to main content

About your Search

20130126
20130203
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
in the president's attitude, certainly in his approach to foreign policy. you'll recall from the beginning of administration, the word engagement was, in fact, a guidepost for how we were going to try to deal with adversaries as well as in terms of how you try to deal with resolving conflict. so, i think engagement as such is not new. there's als been a premise to that engagement. it's engagement without illusion. the president has looked at iran as a country that is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability and he's made it clear his objective is to prevent that, not to live with it. his preferred approach is to resolve it through peaceful means, resolve it by engaging with iranians, getting ourselves and others to engage, but to get the iranians to change their objective. the end result may be preferably achieved through diplomacy but the implication is if diplomacy does not work, force may be likely. >> you listen to what the president said in terms of interpretation from israel, couple with what ma hud barack was saying, if that kind of back-channelling doesn't work. are we at odds with is
correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy plunder in th ee vietnam. correct or incorrect. the question is were you right or wrong? i would like an answer if you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate? >> well, i'm not going to give you a -- a yes or no answer. >> name one person in your opinion who is intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate? >> well, first -- >> name one. >> i don't know. >> well, why would you say it? >> i didn't have in mind a specific person. >> hmm. so, steve, how much was this politics and how much was this genuine, you know, policy concern? >> well, i think it was politics and policy and third, and i think it was personal. john mccain was the author of the surge of troops to iraq at the end of the administration, pushed it hard, took a lot of heat, including from the right. he takes it personal when chuck hagel calls it the bigst debacle since vietnam. and senator hagel dodging the question on whether he agreed with the same statement. hag mccain was getting testy and hagel was d
or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no. >> my reference to the surge being the most dangerous -- >> senator hagel, the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. i would like the answer whether you are right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. >> so it feels like the senator is still fighting the iraq war there. who do you think, alice, looks worse in the exchange between the two men? >> well, clearly hagel. he couldn't put up a good defense for his position in that particular area. this is one area where he just clearly didn't understand what his record was. he first was for the iraq war and then he was opposed to the iraq surge, saying it was a terrible blunder on the part of the u.s. when in fact it worked. he also had trouble answering questions about where he stands with israel. he has failed repeatedly in the past senator to show solidarity with our greatest friend and a
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)